Ep. 1212 - A Lot Of Government Officials Should Be Going To Prison For The Hawaii Fires
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, each new detail that's coming out of Hawaii after the wildfires is more horrifying than the last. We now know that hundreds of people were prevented from fleeing the fire when local authorities barricaded the only road out of town. Only those who disobeyed and left anyway survived. Also, the first GOP primary debate happened last night. I'll explain why it was effectively pointless, just like nearly every other debate. Plus, Jordan Peterson is instructed to attend a mandatory re-education program. And a new study reveals the damage that hours of screen time can do to babies. Which raises the question: what kind of a parent would give their baby hours of screen time?
Ep.1212
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
Cynch - Download the Cynch app and get your first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH. Visit http://cynch.com/offer for details.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, each new detail that comes out of Hawaii after the wildfires is more horrifying than the last.
We now know that hundreds of people were prevented from fleeing the fire when local authorities barricaded the only road out of town.
Only those who disobeyed and left anyway survived.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the first GOP primary debate happened last night.
I'll explain why it was effectively pointless, just like nearly every other debate is effectively pointless.
Plus, Jordan Peterson is instructed to intend a mandatory re-education program, and a new study reveals that A lot of damage can be done if you give hours of screen time to a baby, which raises the question, what kind of parent would give their baby hours of screen time?
Apparently many of them do.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
With a digital currency, the government could track every single purchase you make.
Officials could even prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money.
These are some of the reasons concerned Americans reach out to Birch Gold.
They want to have a physical asset like gold that's independent of the U.S.
dollar, and you could protect your IRA or 401k by diversifying with gold from Birch Gold.
Gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which is right now.
Learn if gold is right for you, too.
Text WALSH to 989898, and they'll send you a free info kit on gold.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, I trust Birch Gold to help you diversify into gold.
If a central bank digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to depend on.
Again, text WALSH to 989898.
If we had a functioning news media, which we don't, there's a video that would be leading every newscast right now.
It has nothing to do with a plane crash in Russia, a GOP primary debate, or even the indictment of every lawyer who's ever given Donald Trump legal advice, as important as all those topics may be.
But this video is about Americans, including children, who died horribly this month.
It's about how their deaths could have been prevented if their government was even remotely competent.
The footage I'm talking about is an interview with a survivor of the fires in Maui.
This interview was conducted not by CNN or NPR, but by a real estate agent who moonlights as a citizen journalist.
And he spoke with a man who goes by the name Fish, who survived the blaze in Lahaina.
And here's what that man saw.
Listen.
And I went out and I saw the fire and you couldn't even see the gateway because it was covered with smoke.
And everyone's standing around just looking.
And I said, I think we should get out of here because of the speed of this wind.
It could be here in two minutes.
So I went around back to Front Street and all the cars were lined up, but none of them were moving.
And I walked all the way from Safeway to the Chart House.
Not one car had moved.
And I was wondering what was stopping the traffic.
Well, it was a policeman.
And I got to the end and I looked up north.
There were no obstructions.
There was no reason to keep those cars there.
Are you serious?
I'm serious as a heart attack.
And I said, what are you doing?
He goes, well, I'm under orders to keep them here.
And I said, the fire is right around Safeway.
It's going to hit Front Street.
You know, these people gotta get out of here.
And he said, I'm following order.
No way.
And so I just kept walking.
Maybe he knows something I don't, you know?
And I keep walking down the highway, and I look behind, no cars are coming out.
I walked all the way to Waikooli Beach, still no cars coming out.
And I started hearing boom, boom, boom.
Then I heard people screaming and stuff.
You're saying they were blockaded in by the police?
At the end of Front Street?
Yeah.
I mean, it's amazing.
And we get that video from, I think it was hawaiirealestate.org?
Gives us that video with that information?
He says, all the cars were lined up, but none of them were moving, and I was wondering what was stopping the traffic.
It was a policeman.
A policeman.
Sitting there trapping all of these people in what is soon to be an inferno.
And as incredible as that account may seem, it's clear now that it's accurate.
There are multiple witnesses saying the same thing.
The Associated Press reports that as residents of one West Valley neighborhood tried to flee using the only paved road in town, quote, car after car was turned back toward the rapidly spreading wildfire by a barricade blocking access to Highway 30.
Turned back towards the fire.
Supposedly, authorities were worried about downed power lines, and there certainly were, we can assume, plenty of downed power lines.
But the problem is that the other option, rather than navigating around that hazard, was to stay and die in the blaze.
Seems obvious which was the better choice, and yet police tried to force the residents to stay put.
Many who listened and turned back, you know, ended up burning to death in their cars.
Being literally cooked to death in their cars.
The most horrific death imaginable.
Others were forced to jump over the seawall and tread water while inhaling smoke.
The people who obeyed the authorities ended up dead in many cases.
It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, people who ignored the authorities fared a lot better.
Around 3 p.m., for example, a man named Nate Baird and his family tried to drive south out of town, but found that the road was blocked by cones and crews who were, quote, working on downed electric poles, according to the AP.
And that's when Baird decided to ignore what the work crews told him.
He drove around the cones, and his family traveled for about an hour until they reached safety.
The article lists several other examples of people who are alive today because they ignored barricades, they ignored the instructions from authorities, and they did what they knew was the smartest thing.
One 38-year-old woman, Kim Cuevas Reyes, ignored authorities' instructions to turn towards the local civic center, which became an ad hoc shelter for refugees.
Instead of doing that, the AP reported, quote, she takes a left, driving in the wrong lane to pass a stack of cars heading in the other direction.
That decision saved her life.
Quote, the gridlock would have left us there when the firestorm started, the woman said.
Quote, I would have had to tell my children to jump into the ocean as well and be boiled alive by the flames.
Or we would have just died from smoke inhalation and roasted in the car.
It wasn't until several hours later that authorities announced that the road out of Lahaina was open for traffic.
Several hours later, by that point, indeed, many people on that road called Front Street had burned to death in their cars or died of smoke inhalation.
Now how is it possible that authorities blocked off one of the only usable routes that would have brought them to safety during a wildfire?
Given that officials in Hawaii were aware of the risk of wildfire for a long time, that is an excellent question.
Now last summer in regulatory filings, Hawaii Electric made it clear that the risk of deadly wildfires was real, especially during high winds.
And yet, apparently, the plan for dealing with this kind of disaster didn't preclude sealing all the roads and trapping people in the middle of a wildfire.
Now, if you think back to Hurricane Katrina, as we made this comparison a few days ago, one of the biggest failures of FEMA back then was a lack of planning.
The government ran evacuation simulations but didn't implement the necessary improvements after those simulations.
So when the hurricane struck, there was chaos.
A lot of people died as a result.
And we're seeing that exact same thing yet again.
All these years later, the same lack of preparation.
Preparation for hazards and catastrophes that are foreseeable.
That's what's causing people to die.
The difference is that we aren't hearing much about FEMA in the aftermath of the catastrophe in Maui.
And why is that?
It's a good question.
Deanne Criswell is the administrator of FEMA, and that's the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
She had the same job that Michael Brown did in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans.
And Brown, you might remember, became a household name in the wake of that disaster, and not in a good way.
When George Bush told Brown that he was doing a heck of a job, it instantly became a national scandal.
Brown was so radioactive that no one was allowed to say anything nice about him.
Unlike Michael Brown, though, Deanne Creswell is not well known.
You've probably never even heard her name.
I didn't know it until I looked it up.
Despite the ongoing disaster in Maui, the national news media and the major political parties in Washington still hold her somehow in high regard.
Just the other day, she sat for a friendly interview on Face the Nation.
This is after the disaster and the bungled handling of that disaster.
But listen to how this interview went.
Watch.
FEMA Director Deanne Criswell toured the damage yesterday with local officials.
Our Jonathan Vigliotti spoke with her after.
You were on the ground touring the disaster zone.
What did you see and what struck you the most?
It's absolutely heartbreaking to just see an entire community that is no longer there.
And I think one of the things that was just really the most shocking, I guess I would say, is the row of cars of people that were trying to drive and escape and then couldn't get out fast enough.
And these are the ones that ended up running or jumping into the water.
And those cars just there.
I mean, it was like a scene from an apocalyptic movie.
So the burned out cars were the most shocking thing, says the FEMA director.
It was like an apocalyptic movie.
There's no scrutiny from Face the Nation or any media outlet about why those cars were stranded there in the first place.
There wasn't any question in that segment about why FEMA didn't have evacuation plans that might have ensured the survival of all those people.
We learned yesterday that Hawaii's top emergency response officials were on another island supposedly learning how to respond to wildfires on the day the blaze began in Maui.
And some key federal disaster officials were apparently busy at some FEMA meetings.
What explains that?
Again, we have no idea because no one is asking.
Reporters are busy talking to Deanne Criswell, the FEMA director, like she's some bystander visiting Maui for the first time.
This is the opposite of how the press treated Michael Brown decades ago.
It's not hard to see why this might be the case.
Deanne Criswell, unlike Michael Brown, is working for Democrats.
She's also the first woman to run FEMA.
So she has the whole identity politics thing going.
It would look very bad if the first woman to run FEMA is also responsible for bungling the response to one of the worst disasters in American history.
Of course, no matter how it looks, that's exactly what happened.
But the media has decided to plug its ears and close its eyes and pretend it's not happening.
But if you do what no major media outlet is interested in doing, if you look into Criswell's past, there's a lot to discuss.
As investigative journalist Nick Sortor pointed out the other day, Criswell's government biography states that, quote, one of her most significant accomplishments was leading the coordination of New York City's response to the COVID-19 pandemic when she served as the commissioner of the New York City Emergency Management Department.
Now, New York's handling of COVID, you might remember, led to more than 10,000 deaths in nursing homes.
Deaths that were undercounted for several months until investigative reporters noticed discrepancies in the government's data.
These are also deaths that were totally avoidable.
But they made the decision in New York City to take people that they knew were infected with COVID and put them in nursing homes, right in the middle of these places where you have the most vulnerable populations.
And 10,000 people at least died as a result.
Now, in most countries, everyone overseeing a response like that would never work again in any capacity, much less in disaster relief.
They'd go to prison for life, if anything.
But Deanne Criswell was never even criticized.
In fact, she got a promotion.
10,000 deaths in nursing homes, and she got promoted.
And then, overseeing yet another failed disaster response, she gets softball questions from every news outlet.
Which is astonishing, really.
We've seen our public health authorities and political leaders lead us into one disaster after another, and they're not slowing down.
Right now, because it's an election year and Pfizer stock is in trouble, the media is, as it happens, is gearing up for COVID 2.0.
Several major corporations and some universities are already implementing mask mandates again.
They're gearing up to do the whole thing over again.
Watch.
You're sick of hearing about COVID.
So are we.
The problem is what is coming because of this new wave of COVID that is really statistically meaningless.
What's coming is really important, because as George predicted, some people just can't let go of the emergency.
More importantly, the emergency powers.
Lionsgate Entertainment out in Hollywood is back to masks and testing.
We talked about colleges yesterday.
There are now 104 colleges in the U.S.
still mandating COVID vaccines for students.
Of course, faculty are exempted.
Some have indicated they will never let this go.
All the while, they refuse to make sense of their pseudoscience on the list.
Rutgers, Harvard, and more.
We can now add that Morris Brown College in Atlanta and the Seattle government, who are never wrong.
The government doctors didn't get a thing wrong during COVID.
They want mandatory face masks for healthcare workers.
Now, along these lines, CNN just published an article entitled, It May Be Time to Break Out the Masks Against COVID, Some Experts Say.
There are the experts again.
The report scolds Americans for not being sufficiently deferential to people with advanced degrees and positions of power.
Despite the concern among experts and some institutions, Americans don't appear to be worried enough about the recent rise in cases to change their behavior.
COVID-19 was at the bottom of the list of key public health threats, according to the latest Axios poll.
Now, it's not hard to see why Americans are reacting that way.
The first time around, more than three years ago, the conventional wisdom was that if you wanted to survive, your best bet was to trust the experts.
And the experts embarrassed themselves and were revealed to be lying one after another.
You know, they said that you could protest for BLM and be safe, but you couldn't protest against lockdowns.
They admitted they were lying about herd immunity.
They misled everyone on the effectiveness of the COVID shot, on masks, on everything.
Nobody really trusts these experts anymore for good reason.
That's encouraging, but the truth is, it's not enough.
A lot of people just died in Maui because officials forcibly blockaded them.
The government and the experts prevented these American citizens from leaving their neighborhood as a wildfire approached them.
They burned to death because they were trapped there by the authorities.
The only way to survive was not simply to doubt Not simply to be skeptical, but to actively disobey what you're being told by the authorities.
Now, when the next lockdown comes, whether the pretext is a COVID variant, a climate emergency, or something else, that's going to be the correct response.
Do what Nate Baird did in Maui.
Ignore the liars calling themselves experts.
Do what you think is best for yourself and your family, and do it fast.
Otherwise, quicker than you might think, you'll be trapped.
And by that point, like the people of Maui, there will be no way out.
Because the fact is that increasingly, we live in a country where only those who disobey will survive.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Innovation Refunds has been helping small businesses that qualify to get a business
payroll tax refund through the Employee Retention Credit or also known as the ERC.
The ERC is a tax refund for businesses that kept employees on payroll for parts of 2020 and 2021.
If you own a business with more than five employees, you could have money waiting to be claimed.
Have you started your application for the ERC, but it didn't finish it?
Well, Innovation Refunds team of independent tax attorneys specialize in ERC applications,
so you don't have to worry about potential errors or navigating complex IRS guidelines.
Let their team guide you through the remaining steps to find out if you're eligible.
Their dedicated team of independent tax attorneys will help you complete your ERC application
with confidence and peace of mind today.
Innovation Refunds does not provide tax or legal advice.
They work with an independent network of tax professionals and will share information with them to evaluate and process your claims.
Go to innovationrefunds.com to determine eligibility.
If you qualify, you could be on your way to receiving money for your business.
There's no upfront charge since they don't get paid unless you get paid.
Go to innovationrefunds.com or dial 1-843-REFUNDS.
That's innovationrefunds.com or 1-843-REFUNDS.
Terms and conditions apply.
So I didn't start the show with the debate, and that's because I thought it would be better to start the show with something that actually matters, and the debate doesn't matter.
And I'm not just saying that to be contrarian or whatever.
I'm not just saying that because I only watch parts of the debate, not the whole thing, so I couldn't deliver a complete analysis of it if I wanted to, though that is the case, I admit.
But I'm saying it because it's true.
It just is.
This stuff, it really doesn't matter.
It has almost no effect.
Who won the debate?
Now there's the debate after the debate about who won it.
Well, Vivek had some good moments.
DeSantis had some good moments.
The others performed exactly as you'd expect.
I thought they all performed exactly as you would expect.
And pretty much, you know, I've noticed this pattern.
Here's a really interesting pattern that I've noticed.
It's pretty fascinating.
Fascinating coincidence.
But what I've seen, just watching pundits and people, the peanut gallery after the debate, it seems like if you liked Vivek Ramaswamy before the debate, then you probably will think that he won it.
And if you liked DeSantis before the debate, then you'll probably think that he won it.
And if you like Mike Pence before the debate, you'll think that he won it.
So that's the relationship that I'm noticing.
Most of the people who think that Vivek won the debate are the ones who, going into it, liked him the most.
Pretty fascinating.
Again, who could have seen that coming?
The truth is that nobody had a moment that will live in history and be remembered.
Nobody had any one line or response that will be quoted 10 years from now or even 10 seconds from now.
Nobody imploded on stage either.
You know, nobody went down in flames.
I mean, it is possible.
I'm not saying that no debate has ever mattered.
It is possible for someone to have a debate performance That does have a major impact on the political world and on their own political fortunes for good or ill.
That does happen, obviously.
We can all think of examples.
But it doesn't usually happen, and it didn't happen last night.
Everybody was fine.
Everyone was fine.
It was fine.
It was all just fine.
C plus.
Fox was not fine, though.
Fox was pretty terrible, which is not unexpected.
They were terrible with topic selection, they were terrible with how they handled the debate, and I'll talk about that in a moment.
As for topic selection, they hit, for example, they hit climate change basically right out of the gate.
And this is maybe the one clip from last night that I'll play for you because it gives you a good idea of where Fox is coming from.
But here they are teeing up the climate change conversation.
Hawaii's governor and White House officials said that climate change amplified the cost of human error.
And a tropical storm hit California for the first time in 84 years.
The ocean hit 101 degrees off the coast of Florida.
And in the last month, the heat wave in the southwest broke records nearly 50 years old.
So Alexander Diaz from Young America's Foundation has a question for you.
Polls consistently show that young people's number one issue is climate change.
How will you, as both President of the United States and leader of the Republican Party, calm their fears that the Republican Party doesn't care about climate change?
So we want to start on this with a show of hands.
Do you believe in human behavior is causing climate change?
Raise your hand if you do.
Look, we're not school children.
Let's have the debate.
I mean, I'm happy to take it to start.
By the way, first time in 84.
So a tropical storm hit California first time in 84 years.
So you're saying it happened 84 years ago.
So you're saying this is the kind of thing that does happen.
It's rare, but it happens.
But rare things happen, they just don't happen often.
And so when a rare thing happens, it doesn't mean that some unprecedented of it.
It's not unprecedented, it's rare.
By definition, that means it's not unprecedented.
What caused it 84 years ago?
If climate change is causing it now, if human man-made climate change is causing
The Tropical Storm.
Now, what caused it 84 years ago?
And if you're going to tell me, well, something else 84 years ago, well, then couldn't it be that something else now?
So there's no difference between how Fox handled this debate and how MSNBC would have handled it.
They talked about climate change.
They talked about January 6th.
They talked about Ukraine.
They talked about Trump.
They probably talked about Trump.
I don't know.
I haven't seen the breakdown of how much time was spent on each topic.
But Trump as a topic will be certainly in the top three.
In terms of the amount of time spent on it.
And that was most of it.
Exactly the kind of topic selection MSNBC would have went with.
No difference.
And by the way, Fox did not ask any questions about child mutilation or gender ideology.
That's the biggest cultural issue in the country for multiple years now, is that.
And there wasn't one single question about it.
And I brought this up on Twitter and someone said, well, there's no reason to ask because we already know what their answers are, but they all agree.
First of all, if we aren't asking questions, if we're going to decide in the debate that we're not going to ask any question that we already know the answer to, then we would just ask no questions at all.
Because we know what they're going to say to all of these things.
But they don't all agree.
In fact, there's a person on that stage, Asa Hutchinson, who vetoed a bill banning child mutilation.
So they don't all agree.
You have a governor who has banned child mutilation, another one who vetoed the ban of it.
So there's a real, let's have a discussion about that.
No time for that, we gotta talk about climate change and other stuff.
And this thing about climate change being the number one issue for young people is BS, obviously.
Climate change is not- I'm sorry, I don't care.
Even if someone tells me that climate change is their number one issue, it's not.
I don't believe you.
If you try to tell me that, I just don't believe you.
I don't believe the polls.
That's the kind of answer people give because they think they're supposed- When someone comes to you, especially if you're younger and you're not clued in, you don't know what's going on in the world, and some surveyor comes to you and says, what are the top issues to you?
And then you say, oh, climate change.
Because it sounds socially conscious, it sounds like the kind of thing you're supposed to- it's a safe thing, it's a safe thing to say.
It's the kind of answer you give on a survey because you think it's the answer you're supposed to give.
But nobody is waking up in the morning worried about climate change.
People don't even, like, talk about it in real life.
I did like DeSantis' response there, the way he began his response, objecting to the way the question was even framed.
What is this raise your hand stuff?
They did that multiple times last night.
Raise your hand if this is what my kids do at the dinner table.
This is what they do when they're all sitting around.
Raise your hand if you think vanilla is the best ice cream flavor.
This is what kids like to do.
These are adults, allegedly.
This is a presidential race.
Can we actually talk about it and have a conversation?
What do you mean raise your hand?
Especially when it comes to an issue like this when you can't really give your take with a simple hand raise.
Not every question is yes or no.
And that was my biggest problem with the debate.
And it's my problem with how basically every presidential debate is run.
Especially in the primaries.
I just, I hate it.
I hate it.
I think they do it completely wrong.
I hate the way we approach debates.
Because the thing is, they did cover some topics that matter.
They talked about, they talked about the border.
They talked about crime.
They talked about abortion.
These are topics that matter.
But even there, it was basically pointless because you have eight people on the stage and they have 90 seconds or 45 seconds or even 30 seconds in some cases to give an answer.
Okay, how ridiculous is that?
In a political debate, when we're trying to figure out who should be president, you throw a question out and say, you have 30 seconds.
30 seconds?
What can you say in 30 seconds?
And then, of course, as it always goes in these debates, if they actually start arguing, right?
If they debate during the debate, the moderators jump in to shut it down.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, stop that.
No, there's not going to be any debating, sir, sir.
There will be no debating in this debate.
Those are the rules.
Stop, no, stop debating.
This is a debate, not a debate.
Stop debating.
Be civil, which means, what does that mean?
It means go back to giving your canned 30 second sound bites.
And they're all canned, okay?
I know the knock on someone like DeSantis.
Again, it's mostly from people that decided ahead of time they weren't going to like his performance no matter what he did.
But still, his responses are canned.
They're all canned!
What do you think they're doing up there?
Are you that stupid that you think that there's anyone on the stage not giving a canned response?
You don't think they all sat there and rehearsed it, and they're giving rehearsed responses?
Maybe some of them are better at not sounding rehearsed, but they're all rehearsed and canned, all of them, every time.
You know why?
Because nobody can say anything worthwhile in 30 seconds.
You can't flesh out your views.
You can't explain your position.
You can't do anything but give a canned response.
I don't even blame them for giving canned responses.
You have to.
What else are you going to do?
If someone says, what do you think about crime?
You have 30 seconds, go!
If you don't have a canned response for that, you won't be able to say anything.
You're going to say, what do I think about it?
Let me think.
That's what normal people do, unless you have a canned response and you can pull into your bag of canned response.
Oh, I got a 30 second for that.
I mean, these people, they all have, they have a 30 second canned response for each topic.
They have 45 seconds.
They have 90 seconds.
They might have a two minute.
And depending on the forum, if it's a debate, then they go, if they go into cable news, Can any of them talk about any of these topics for more than 120 seconds at a maximum?
Can any of them flesh out their views for like, let's say, five minutes at a time?
I don't know, we've rarely seen it.
And so, when we talk about who won the debate, what do you mean by win?
Okay, the person who wins, if anyone wins, it's because they were the best at saying snappy, clever things in 30 seconds, which, great.
Okay, that's great, but what does that mean?
What does that tell us about them?
So what?
Let's say that someone has the best, you know, debate performance in the world.
It's the best thing you've ever seen.
The best debate performance.
All that means is that they are very, very, very good at saying clever things in 30 seconds that they've rehearsed ahead of time, but they don't sound rehearsed.
Which again, I mean, that is a real skill.
I gave you a lot of props for that.
It means you'd be a great cable news contributor, but does it mean you'd be a great president?
What is the carryover here?
You might as well just have them go out and do a three-legged race.
Put them in potato sacks and do a relay race.
That'd be more entertaining, at least.
Have them do a push-up contest on stage.
That's more entertaining.
It would be just as irrelevant.
Probably less irrelevant, actually.
At least that would tell us a little bit about their physical fitness in the office.
Because this tells us nothing.
The way they handle it tells us nothing about them.
It tells us nothing about how they would be as president.
And I hate it.
I don't know if I've mentioned that I hate it, but I really do.
And then you have the live audience there.
What is the live audience doing in there?
Like, why does no one question this?
Why do we need a live?
Yeah, the debate should be live.
It should be broadcast live.
But why do you need an audience in the room?
What does that do?
This is supposed to be a conversation about serious issues.
Why do we need trained SEALs clapping in the background?
All that means is that someone can say something really ordinary, and it will sound epic if they get the applause.
So they can say, oh yeah, well, I think you're wrong about that.
And then the crowd goes, ooh, wow, yeah.
And then later on, the pundits will talk about how that was a great moment.
You know, I thought that was a great line, you know, when the candidate said that the other one was wrong about that.
Crowd reaction was great.
It was a great moment.
It was a defining moment for him.
That's going to change everything.
So here's how the debate should go, okay?
I'm not just criticizing without having a solution.
Here's what you do.
Primaries.
You let three or four people into the debate.
Not any more than that.
I mean, there were people who were complaining that there weren't enough people in there.
People complaining that, oh, well, Larry Elder, someone else should have been.
You thought there should have been more people on the stage?
That's what you think?
That's how we improve this?
No, there should be three or four people.
You take the top three or four people.
We don't need the guys that no one's heard of.
We don't need the governor of North Dakota.
Ten people live in that state.
Half of them have never heard of their governor.
The rest of us have no idea.
Okay?
I mean, I could announce for president tomorrow, and I would poll higher than the governor of North Dakota.
Not much higher, but I would poll higher.
Like, guaranteed.
So, he's irrelevant.
We don't need him in there.
We don't need Asa Hutchinson in there.
Who's voting for Asa Hutchinson?
What audience?
What is Asa Hutchinson's base?
If you talk to one person in your life, and you ask them, you know, what's the politician you support, and they say, Asa Hutchinson?
What do we need Chris Christie for?
He's not a serious candidate either.
So just give up the three or four top guys, put them in a room, nobody in the audience, you give them topics, and you let them argue about the topics.
That's all.
That's all the moderator should do.
That's how you moderate a debate.
You say, okay, candidates, your first topic is the border.
Then maybe give them each three minutes for opening statements, just to kind of lay out opening statement, and then You say, okay, go, 45 minutes, talk about it.
And then you sit back and you just let them talk.
That's it.
You just let them have a conversation.
Like normal human beings do.
So we can actually hear them flesh it out.
Hear how they defend their point.
Can we let it play out a little bit?
Presidential debate between two people even more so.
You know, you have the two presidential candidates, you should have, you know, it's a two and a half hour, two, two and a half hour debate.
You have maybe five or six topics, maybe at most, and you just, you throw out the topic, they get 30 to 45 minutes, 20 minutes at a minimum, and you just let them talk about it.
You don't need to jump in.
Sir, stop being mean, you're being mean to him.
You're interrupting, it's a little bit too, be nice, please and thank you.
We don't need that.
Why do we need that?
It's all wrong.
All this stuff is so incredibly ridiculous and insulting.
And I talked about it for 15 minutes anyway, but what can I do?
Okay, moving on.
Daily Wire has this report.
A Canadian court has upheld the sanctioning of Dr. Jordan Peterson by a psychologist governing body that has targeted Peterson for criticizing transgender ideology, climate alarmism, and the Canadian government.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario, which has embraced radical gender theory in recent years, has threatened to remove Peterson's clinical psychology license over his social media activity if he did not go through a so-called Specified continuing education or remedial program, otherwise known as a re-education program.
So they want Jordan Peterson in their re-education program.
Which really, I mean, they know not what they ask.
I don't, do you, if you're running, not that I feel sorry for the people, but if you're running one of these re-education programs, do you want Jordan Peterson in your class?
I like the idea.
I'd love to see what that looks like.
But I don't think the people running, no one, I don't know where they find the instructors for these re-education sessions.
But that's the short straw, is getting the class with Jordan Peterson sitting there.
On Wednesday, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered Peterson to pay $25,000 to the College of Psychologists and upheld the order that he go through a social media education program.
The organization is not punishing Peterson for any interactions with patients, rather it is censoring, fining, and attempting to re-educate him for public comments he made, including on social media and during podcast appearances.
Peterson responded by blasting the court and vowing to make every aspect of the case go public.
Quote, so the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the College of Psychologists of Ontario can pursue their prosecution.
He said prosecution, it's also persecution.
That's my editorial.
Editorialization.
If you think that you have a right to free speech in Canada, you're delusional.
I will make every aspect of this public, and we will see what happens when utter transparency is the rule.
Bring it on.
And this all stems, yeah, I mean, there's other comments he's made on social media.
They mentioned climate alarmism, or his criticism of climate alarmism.
But really, it all comes back down to gender.
That's where it all started.
And that's what it, that's what it, that's what this is all about for them.
I think if Jordan Peterson, all the other issues, I mean if Jordan Peterson were just to come out and simply say, if he were to just to simply renounce basic reality, then say, you know, I thought about it and actually women can have penises.
If he were to say that, they'd leave him alone completely.
But he won't say that, much to his credit.
And so now they want to force him into this re-education program.
When people look at a case like this, they tend to see it as a, this is all about free speech.
And it is.
I mean, it is about free speech.
That's one of the reasons why it should worry us greatly.
Is that this is the, I mean, blatant suppression of free speech.
And yes, it's happening in Canada.
But if you think this isn't coming here, then you just haven't been paying attention.
I mean, it's already here to some extent.
But all of this, everything that's happening in Canada right now, when it comes to speech, when it comes to everything, when it comes to, you know, euthanasia becoming one of their leading causes of death, all the rest, it's all coming.
And we know that because the groundwork is laid.
You know, the precedents have been set.
And as I always say, the analogy for me is like we're on the same train track on the same train.
Going over the same ledge, it's just that they are a few train cars up.
So they're gonna go over the ledge before us, but I mean, we are attached to them.
So we're going next.
Unless some kind of radical severing happens in the meantime.
It's the only way to save it.
And so this same thing is happening here on the same pretense.
Because this all, you know, this all goes back to the idea of hate speech, the idea of That we have to affirm gender confused people.
We have to affirm them in their confusion.
And if we don't do that, it's an act of violence.
It's a hate crime.
We are actively causing their deaths just by not affirming whatever delusional thing they think or say.
And if that was true, like if it was somehow true, They say speech is violence.
When you say something, you're killing someone.
Well, if you accept that, then the rest follows logically from there.
So that's happening here.
But this is also, we always have to emphasize, yes, it's free speech, but it's not just that.
Okay, free speech is the suppression of speech.
It's the suppression of open expression of ideas.
Trying to rig the debate so that only one side can be heard.
And it is that, but it's worse than that.
Because we always have to remember that they're not just suppressing any speech, they are suppressing true speech.
They are suppressing what is true.
So I would like to get to the point where we really stop calling it speech suppression And we call it truth suppression, because that's what it is.
You know, I'm against the infringement of free speech in general, but this is the worst kind, because they're infringing on true speech.
And when we get to a point where people are not allowed to say true things about some of the most basic facts of reality, that's the end of civilization.
The other takeaway from this, putting all the speech issues aside, is that you see here why I am so critical of the, we talked about this backstage last night, it's why I'm so critical of the psychology industry, and psychologists, therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, all of it.
I'm so critical of it, so skeptical of it, I warn people about it so often, you've got to be very careful before you go consult a psychologist about anything.
Especially when you're in a vulnerable state, you're feeling desperate.
That's when you gotta be the most careful.
Because this is what that industry has become.
Where Jordan Peterson, because he simply believes in reality, is being run out.
By his fellow psychologists.
They're the ones who are coming out against him.
They're the ones who are coordinating this attack.
The entire industry has been ideologically captured.
It's been that way for a long time.
And this is what happens to the few stragglers who refuse to go along.
The fact is that most people in the industry, they don't have the guts to endure this kind of persecution.
And so they just go along with it.
They somehow convince themselves.
That the gender affirmative model is actually okay.
They find a way to convince themselves so they can live with themselves, so they can go to sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror, you know, without breaking down in tears of shame.
That's what they do.
I think a lot of these people in this industry, they've brainwashed themselves because they have to convince, I mean, deep down they know that it's not true.
They know that when an eight-year-old boy comes to them saying, I'm really a girl, they know that, of course, he's not actually a girl.
Of course, he's confused.
Of course, this is a confusion that we could really easily alleviate.
And they know all that deep down.
But if they say it, they're going to get the Jordan Peterson treatment.
They're too afraid for that.
But they can't admit to themselves that they're going along with this insidious, toxic, dangerous, vile lie.
That really is getting people killed and destroying lives and destroying children.
They can't admit that to themselves, and so they find a way to convince themselves.
It's like this self-brainwashing process.
And they go and pass that brainwashing on to their patients.
I also wanted to play this briefly.
Good Morning Britain has a report on the UK's first successful womb transplant.
Let's watch a little bit of this.
This is going to change so many lives.
We couldn't have families before.
Amir, shall we come to you?
Because I know you are desperate to wave the flag of celebration of your colleagues.
Just put into context, you know, the extraordinary endeavour involved here on behalf of the medical profession and what it'll mean.
Oh, morning.
It'll mean so much to so many couples and women.
And the efforts that went into that, reading about the research that the surgeons did, 25 years of research before doing this kind of procedure, all those people in that theatre giving up their time for free.
And the outcome for this lady and her partner.
I think it's really hard to understand the impact of infertility when you're a woman unless you go through it yourself.
That idea of carrying your own child, giving birth to your own biological child.
Unless that opportunity has been taken away from you, you don't really get that impact.
And for women who have had their wombs removed through things like cancer or trauma, or through birth defects such as this lady had, this will mean everything.
It's a chance, it's hope for the future.
The donor in this case, as we've said, was this lady's older sister, who's had her family, so she was happy to give up her womb, an extraordinary thing to do.
She's very well apparently, the operation to remove it went perfectly.
But can I ask the obvious question?
If a young woman has signed the donor register and is prepared to give up her organs after death, could you take a womb from somebody, say, a young woman who, say, tragically had been killed in a car crash?
Yes, you could.
And it is tragic in those situations, but this is the hope that those situations do give to other people.
And I think Womb Transplant UK, the charity that paid for this, has said they've got some money for further transplants, including those from people who have sadly died or who are brain dead.
So yes, that is still an opportunity for women who want children.
So this is like the cutting edge of science and medicine right now.
Womb transplants is the first one in the UK.
There have been some in the United States.
It's really a handful at this point.
It's very, very new.
And it's generally treated by almost everyone as a great development, just sort of straightforward, wonderful thing.
Who could have a problem with it?
Well, when it comes to finding a reason to have a problem with something, I'm usually your guy for that, and I do have a problem with this, and I don't have to search that hard for this.
I think this is actually really quite bad, the womb transplant thing, and I give you two reasons.
I mean, the first one is that absolutely, without a doubt, they will Now that they're doing womb transplants, they will start doing it for men.
For men who want to be women, who pretend that they are women.
Absolutely, that is going to happen.
There's no question about it.
And there's just no way of avoiding it.
We have womb transplants, and once we accept that, then it'll happen.
And they're going to do it, and they're going to try.
And it'll be a disaster, but they're going to do it.
So, that's where this heads immediately.
That's where it heads.
So that's one problem.
The other problem is just the risk.
You do an organ transplant.
It's a very risky procedure.
And if you want to take on that risk for yourself, then that's your prerogative.
But given the organ that we're transplanting here, ultimately, it's not just going to be your risk.
It's also the risk of the child.
Who will eventually be in the transplanted womb.
And we simply don't have, there's not enough experience with this to say how safe that really is for the children.
There's no way to really know for sure.
You can speculate, you can look at, you know, you can take a small sample size and try to extrapolate from that.
But it's a risk that is passed down to the children who eventually are going to be in these transplanted wombs.
And how many are going to die because of complications based on the fact that it was a womb transplant?
That's the real ethical dilemma here.
It's like no one is talking about or even acknowledging that I've seen.
There is a risk involved with the child, but that is a person, and I know a big part of the problem here is that legally, they're not acknowledged as people, but they are, that is a person who is taking on this risk without consent.
And so that's what I'm worried about when I see this.
And the truth is, and look, infertility is a very, very difficult thing to deal with.
But there are children, there are many children out there who do need to be adopted.
And so maybe that's an option that should really be explored if you're in a position like this.
There are a lot of children in need of adoption.
And in that case, you're not taking on a risk on behalf of that child, but rather you're saving that child and bringing them into your home.
As many of you know, I'm a true grill master.
I love grilling up just about anything.
Thanks to my friends at Cinch, my grill is never empty with propane.
Because of this, I can have whatever I want, whenever I want, on the grill.
Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.
They deliver propane tanks right to your door.
Cinch delivers on your schedule, does not require any long-term commitment or subscription.
Plus, delivery is completely contactless, so you don't have to wait around at home.
You can track the order on the Cinch app from wherever you happen to be.
Whether you're grilling for the Sweet Baby Gang, camping with your family, or lighting up your fire pit on a cold summer night, Cinch's propane delivery service ensures that you have the fuel you need to make the most of every moment.
Go online to cinch.com or download their app to order.
New customers can get their first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH.
That's C-Y-N-C-H dot com.
Promo code WALSH.
It's a limited time offer and you must live within a Cinch service area to redeem it.
Visit cinch.com slash offer for details.
Candace Owens just wrapped the 10-part series Convicting a Murderer that you won't want to miss.
It's one of the most ambitious projects that we've done yet.
You might think you're familiar with the Stephen Avery case and everything that happened in Manitowoc County.
That's especially true if you watch Making a Murderer.
But it turns out the filmmakers only told you part of the story.
Coming soon, Candace Owens will unveil the shocking parts of Avery's story that were omitted in the Netflix series.
I'm so excited to present the Convicting a Murderer trailer.
Check it out.
This is a collect call from an inmate at the Calumet County Jail.
The man served 18 years in prison until DNA evidence cleared his name.
The Two Rivers man was convicted of sexual assault in 1985 but exonerated with DNA evidence in 2003.
So this is the infamous Avery lot.
Now, two years later, he again finds himself tied to a police investigation.
Accused of murdering Teresa Hallbuck on the Avery property.
Stephen Avery's 16-year-old nephew admitted his involvement in the rape and murder of Teresa Hallbuck.
The car is discovered just around the bend.
It was just this worldwide phenomenon.
I think they framed this guy.
I think he intended to crush the vehicle, but ran out of time.
Avery thinks the $36 million lawsuit he filed is why he's being targeted in this investigation.
10-21 at 24 Main Street.
Do we have Steve Avery?
Netflix made millions of dollars from making a murderer.
But the filmmakers left out very important details.
Mountains of evidence that you have not yet seen.
The blood vial.
The most egregious manipulation from the movie.
Interrogations.
That's when he started beating me because I told him that he's sick.
Cell phones.
And I saw melted plastic parts of a cell phone.
Interviews.
Her arms were pinned behind her head.
They made Steven Avery look like a victim.
You don't believe your brother's guilty?
I don't know if I'm a suspect.
I got nothing to hide.
I'm getting sick and tired of media deception.
Evidence piling up.
Why would they omit so many different things?
Why are you editing my testimony?
I am not going to make the same mistake that the filmmakers did.
Rearranging the testimony.
They delete a portion of it at the end.
How could they claim to care about the truth?
They all know that Stephen Avery committed this crime.
The evidence forces me to conclude that you are the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom.
(gentle music)
Well, to get the rest of the story, you have to watch Convicting a Murderer coming to you early September.
This 10-part series is exclusive to DailyWire+, so you have to join now to watch it at dailywire.com slash subscribe to get 25% off your new annual membership so you can watch Convicting a Murderer when it premieres.
Trust me, you don't want to miss it.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I've spent plenty of time on this show explaining my problem with studies, and there's nothing wrong in principle with the idea of conducting a study.
Doing a study just means that you're studying something.
I'm not opposed to that.
The problem, as I've argued, is that so many studies use shoddy methodology in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, and then those same studies are used as ammunition in political arguments by people who haven't read them.
But, on the other end of the spectrum are studies that are entirely valid and reach legitimate conclusions by following the scientific process, and yet are still a waste of time because they prove something that everyone should already know intuitively without any scientific study telling them.
You have studies that come to fake conclusions, and then you have studies that come to foregone conclusions, self-evident conclusions.
This week the media is reporting on one that falls very much into that latter category, or at least I would have hoped that it falls into the latter category.
I would like to believe that everyone already knows this and doesn't need any scientific research to tell them, but maybe perhaps it turns out I'm wrong.
CNN reports, quote, handing your baby a phone or tablet to play with may seem like a harmless solution when you're busy, but it could quickly affect their development, a new study has found.
Now, it's a brief sidebar here.
I guess my initial theory has already taken a hit.
The optimistic part of me, a part that is growing smaller and smaller by the day, would have liked to think that every parent understands that getting your baby hooked on a tablet is most certainly not a harmless solution, nor is it a healthy way to deal with the busyness of life.
But that's not the impression you get from the first sentence of this article.
And reading on, quote, Having anywhere from one to four hours of screen time per day at age one is linked with higher risks of developmental delays in communication, fine motor problem-solving, and personal and social skills by age two, according to a study of 7,097 children published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.
Quote, it's a really important study because it has a very large sample size of children who've been followed by it for several years, said Dr. Jason Nagata, Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study.
Quote, the study fills an important gap because it identifies specific developmental delays in skills such as communication and problem solving associated with screen time, said Nagata, noting there haven't been many prior studies that studied this issue with several years of follow-up data.
Now, I just want to emphasize this.
Four hours of screen time at age one.
Four hours at age one.
Keep in mind that children at age one, I mean, these are babies we're talking about.
People are plopping their babies in front of screens for four hours, apparently.
But children at that age, they typically nap twice a day.
So, you know, you might get three or four hours of napping out of a baby.
Most likely, also you're putting them down for bed, like at 8 or 8.30, maybe earlier.
The point is that they're only awake for 7 or 8 hours a day.
Which means that 4 hours of screen time is half of their waking hours at the age of 1.
This is what parents are doing, apparently.
And here are the results of that parenting decision.
Quote, "The study measured how many hours children used screens per day at age one
and how they performed in several developmental domains, communication skills, fine motor skills, personal and
social skills, and problem-solving skills at ages two and four.
Both measures were according to the mother's self-reports."
By age 2, those who had up to 4 hours of screen time per day were up to 3 times more likely to experience developmental delays in communication and problem-solving skills.
Those who had spent 4 or more hours with screens were 4.8 times more likely to have underdeveloped communication skills, 1.7 times more likely to have subpar fine motor skills, And two times more likely to have underdeveloped personal and social skills by age two.
Potential harms of screen time on communication skills may have to do with children being robbed of drivers for language development.
Technology use can take time away from interpersonal relationships that nurture social skills, since real people are more multidimensional than characters on a screen.
Looking at people's faces is when our brains turn on to figure out how to interact with them.
If children don't have enough time to play or are handed a tablet to pacify negative emotions, that can prevent the important developmental milestone that is the ability to navigate discomfort.
Now, normally I'm skeptical of studies that depend on self-reported data, but that's because participants are inevitably biased in their own favor when self-reporting.
What that means for this research is that actually the situation is probably much worse than what we're told.
If parents are going to skew the data at all, they'll do it to undercount the amount of time their kids spend on screens and underestimate the developmental delays.
It seems very unlikely that any parent would exaggerate the amount of screen time to make it sound like they plop their kids in front of screens more often than they really do.
So the point is that the real story is even more concerning than what's presented here.
It's especially the case when you zoom out and view the problem through a wider lens.
Kids are put on screens, as we've now seen, practically from birth, and they'll stay on them through their entire childhoods, hardly taking a break, hardly ever looking up to take in the physical world around them.
It's difficult to find reliable estimates on the average amount of time kids are spending on screens, in part because this data is, again, always going to be self-reported, and the people doing the self-reporting are incentivized to underestimate.
But even with that limitation, the surveys I've seen all seem to agree that children between the ages of 8 and 18 spend, on average, around 8 or 9 hours a day on screens.
I've seen some estimates that say 10 hours.
And that's just for entertainment purposes.
Doesn't count schoolwork.
It's even harder to find reliable estimates for kids younger than 8, but we know that they don't suddenly jump on the screens at 8 years old and spend 8 hours on them.
So we know that.
And 8 or 9 hours of screen time is probably an extremely conservative estimate.
Yet even taking it at face value, this would mean that millions of children are essentially spending every waking moment when they're not in school staring at screens.
This is their whole life.
And most of that time is spent on phones and tablets, not on the TV.
A survey back in 2019 found that over half of kids in the U.S.
have phones with internet access by the age of 11.
20% of children have them before the age of 8.
That's phones with internet access, before the age of 8.
It was in 2019, so we can be sure that those numbers have all gone up considerably in the four years since the survey was conducted.
And although plenty of studies, including the most recent one, Have revealed some of the damage this is doing to our kids.
No study can paint a complete picture.
We're only just now beginning to see what that looks like, what the full picture is.
As the first generation of kids raised from birth on screens, smartphones, internet, begins to reach adulthood.
And the results are quite dire.
Only getting worse over time.
I mean, Gen Z is the fattest, loneliest, most depressed, most anxious, least motivated, least ambitious generation of human beings to ever live on the planet.
All the statistics bear that out.
They have difficulty forming human connections and relationships.
They're mostly uninterested in even trying.
They're deeply confused about themselves, about the world.
Incredibly ignorant.
Gender confusion has reached never-before-seen highs in this group.
They spent their whole lives staring at screens.
They never knew life without it.
And that's having exactly the kind of impact that any rational person should expect.
So why would parents set their children up for this?
Why would you do this to your kid?
Why would you intentionally put your child in a position where they will become totally addicted to and dependent on screens and unable to function as normal human beings in the world without them?
Why would you actively ensure that your child has unfettered access to the internet?
Where he'll be exposed to all manner of ugliness and depravity and degeneracy, which he'll absorb and internalize during the formative years of his life.
Why would you allow your child to spend eight, nine, ten hours a day laying around and staring at a little glowing box instead of going out into the fresh air and having a real childhood, whether he likes it or not?
Well, whatever answer parents might give, whatever they tell themselves, the truth is clear.
I mean, they do it out of sheer laziness, and some will actually admit this.
Here's one mother on TikTok explaining, in the very TikTok way, why she gives her kids tablets.
Let's watch.
[MUSIC]
Because they're annoying, she says.
In the video, she says, why would you give your kids tablets?
She says, because they're annoying.
Like, the kids are annoying.
That's what she's saying.
She's a bad mother, in other words.
She wanted to make a video to let everyone know that she's a bad mother.
It was very important to let everyone know.
Now, that video has 5,000 likes.
Many mothers have jumped into the comment section to give their amens.
One says, quote, LOL, I like your thinking.
Totally guilty of this, too.
Another says, they really do be like that, though.
It's the only thing besides sticking their hands in outlets that keeps them occupied.
LMAO.
Another says, as my kid sits there on her phone and I'm on my phone, ah, silence.
Another says, yes, I just bought the twins one.
Many similar comments, and then there's this.
Only full-time parents would understand.
Is that so?
Well, I'm a full-time parent.
I have six kids, all of them ten and younger, three under four years old.
None of them have phones or tablets.
And I can guarantee you my wife and I have much busier lives than any of the women in that comment section.
By a considerable margin, probably.
Now, look, we're not perfect parents by any stretch of the imagination, but the point is that parents who pull this, well, you'll understand when you're a parent.
Yeah, you might judge parents for giving their kids tablets and having them on the screens, but when you're a parent, you'll understand.
No, that's a cope.
That's a rationalization.
You are lazy and neglectful.
You're more worried about making your kid shut up and leave you alone than actually raising him and helping him to become a good, happy, well-adjusted person.
You're a parent who doesn't want to parent.
And mostly, you don't want to parent so that you can spend all of your time on your own screen.
Okay?
Your entire home life is centered around the screen.
The screen has cannibalized everything.
It has defined you and your family.
You're not even a family.
You're just a collection of human beings living in the same house, staring at screens.
Is this really the kind of life you want?
Is this the kind of life you want your kid to have?
What is the point of a life that is spent doing nothing but staring mindlessly at a glowing box?
These are the questions you should ask yourself.
And if you're giving a tablet to your one-year-old to spend hours a day on, then you really need to ask yourself this question.
In the meantime, put down the screen.
Take the screen away from your child.
Take him outside.
Play a board game with him.
Play hide-and-seek.
Have a conversation, if you can imagine.
Read him a book.
Like, do something for God's sake.
Love your child enough to pay attention to him for more than 30 seconds at a time.
Takes a little bit of effort, but it's not so difficult as you think.
